Slashdot Mirror
How Important Is Protecting Streaming Media?
spaj writes "In the ongoing battle with the MPAA and RIAA, there seems to be an ongoing argument about who is to blame. If you leave a $20 bill on the sidewalk, can you report it stolen when someone takes it? Of course you can, but will you be taken seriously by the authorities? When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals. So, who is at fault when it comes to users abusing their right to capture streaming media for personal use? According to Applian.com's Legal FAQ, the RIAA will not come after you if you make a recording for your own personal use. I have often been torn on this issue, and I am looking for input. Adobe recently released a new format of their widely used streaming protocol, RTMP, that includes 128-bit encryption (RTMPE). I can only interpret this as an attempt to prevent capturing of the streaming media content for personal use. However, Applian has already circumvented the RTMPE protection, and you can read about it on Adobe's forums, where some users seem quite dissatisfied that their content is not protected enough by Adobe's technology. I think the main question boils down to: Who is to blame? Can you blame Adobe for not making a better encryption? Or do you blame Applian for bypassing such security features? Or do you blame the authors of stolen content for leaving the security of their material in somebody else's hands?"
Why does this drone on and on about assigning blame.
This just isn't sensible because DRM can't work ever. It's just not mathematically possible.
Right, now you can go back to trying to stop people "stealing" images off web pages with crappy bits of javascript. Good luck.
Sound waves cannot be encrypted - where there is a will, there is a way. Certain people will always take pleasure from using whatever means necessary to make copies of music, or almost any art for that matter. Digital systems just make it more convenient and therefore it occurs on a massive scale.
Setting up a microphone and recording the output from the speakers might be the last resort and the lowest quality, but people will go to these lengths if it is the only way they can get something for nothing / they are not supposed to / what other people have or even because they like the technical challenge of getting the best recording they can using the tools and techniques they possess.
If you send a video stream to someone, they'll be able to record it. The VCR proved that once -- do these authors think digital media will be any different? Or should be any different?
Adobe isn't at fault for "not making a better encryption". It's not possible. You have to send someone the key if you want them to watch the video, and once they have the key, they can decrypt it for any other purpose. No amount of programming can evade that basic logic.
Applian isn't at fault for making a program that decrypts the stream, either. They're the VCR manufacturer of this era, making a tool that people can use to time-shift videos. What's wrong with that?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Idealism of liberal copyrights aside, if Adobe is selling a product that is intended to keep people from copying your wares, and it is in fact it's not stopping them, then it's pretty clear who is at fault. It's a faulty product, the blame lies with Adobe. Of course if they had any brains they'd know that what they want to do is impossible, but since they're selling the product, it needs to work as advertised.
The media companies are not content with the amount of profits they are making and even if they could stop piracy, it would cost them a huge amount of money to do so. Consequently, an easier way of making more profits is to make the honest buyers pay more, and a good way of making them pay more is to enforce a rental model on them.
So they go to the software companies to create the mechanisms that allow the creation of DRM (="Media with a built in time bomb) delivery mechanisms and of course it's great for Adobe and others to be able to put their logos up alongside Disney's or Paramount's.
But because no software is perfect, the DRM gets cracked & it's back to the drawing board.
As long as DRM is around, this cycle will just keep repeating itself because this is no longer about corporations giving consumers what they want but waging war on them. So DRM will fail.
All I'm waiting for now are for Apple to find the guts to drop DRM completely in iTunes (if they really are the "nice" company all the people on here say they are) and I think that will be the final death knoll for DRM.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The only person who's ever to blame is the one who's doing something illegal such as violating the content owner's copyright.
The person designing the security is generally trying to do the best that they can to balance security against annoyance of said security of customers, knowing full well that it's only a matter of time before that security is broken.
You can't blame the person breaking the security either as they may only being doing so to enable fair use rights that were taken away by the security. Likewise, anyone who uses the security remove technique could only be doing so for fair use reasons. Fair use may seem sketchy when talking about streamed video online, but if you want to use parts of the video to form a rebuttal video to the points or opinions expressed in the original video I believe making a copy of the stream would fall within fair use. Also I believe it's considered fair use to use any video if providing commentary on segments of the video.
You really can't necessarily blame the content creator either. In some cases they're not even responsible for their works being available somewhere on the internet. Someone violating their copyright may have uploaded it to a video streaming site. Is lack of security on a video streaming site the fault of a movie creator if someone rips the movie from DVD and uploads it to a website?
Blame copyright violations on the people who actually commit them.
Who is to blame?
Why do we always need someone to blame? All the sides involved have their own valid way of seeing the situation...
The content creator wants to "protect" their work; The end user wants to keep a copy for a variety of reasons. The container/transport producer gets paid by the content producer (usually); and the crackers don't actually count as a separate group, they just reflect knowledgeable end-users who have the power to make sure they can keep a copy.
Who in that chain do we call "wrong" for what they do? The creator we can perhaps call "overprotective", thinking that once the baby grows up and leaves home they can still tell it what to do. The middlemen perhaps should perhaps advise their customers better, but at the end of the day they need to eat too. The end users should of course reimburse the creators for the content, but I would consider "free" the least of the reasons to have a local copy.
Or looking at it from a slightly different angle... At every step, the situation boils down to pure self-interest. And put bluntly, I value my interests above yours - just as you value your own interests above mine.
It doesn't matter for which higher and noble purpose DRM is used, people just don't like it. People want their computer to do what they tell it to do and not what some company wants. I want to be in control of what software runs on my computer, because it's my computer and I bought it from my money. That's the whole point.
DRM is like a brainchip that prevents you from doing certain things. You wouldn't like that, would you? Why should you accept something like that on your computer then?
security thought who-the-hell-would-have-thought-of-implementing- something-as-dumb-as-that
;)
Any DRM scheme falls under this heading. If I can play it on my computer (or another electronic device), I can copy it.
OK, well, I probably can't, but there are lots of smart guys on Slashdot who could.
Put identity in the browser.
When my car was broken into, I was told by the responding police officer that I might have prevented it by keeping my seats and visible areas clear of junk that would entice criminals. So, who is at fault
If you'd listen to the police, you'd realize they're giving you preventive measures you can take to lower the chance your car will be stolen. They're not blaming you, just trying to educate. You could've put a million dollars on the front seat, doors locked, and something stole it, the thief would still be at fault, but you would definitely be the laughing stock of the police station.
Yes, and when more publishers focus on products based on delivering an experience, versus current products that deliver content alone, consumers may sufficiently value the offering not to attempt to get it for free.
Note also that many of the most valuable musical offerings are already interactive in that no two live performances are ever the same, and also that recordings of such performances are worthy of being made and purchased.
-M5B
(captcha: muffles)
Okay...let's look at this. Yesterday in my office, we had a conversation about a quaint method of distributin media that I had forgotten about....the public library.
The idea that a popular piece of media, in this case a book, has more than 300 readers or people on a waiting list to read a book indicates to me 300 lost sales for the book publisher. However, this notion of media distribution has long been supported by federal laws.
So we as a community need to ask, do the makes of music, movies, other media, work more than authors? Why are their works more protected than a lowly book that gets passed around like a drunken cheerleader with the publisher's blessing? There is only one answer that can satify this...greed.
Is this greed that has enveloped the movie and music industries likely to destroy this nation's information distribution system? Is the library a leak in the profit margins for book manufacturers? Do humans have an obligation to share information without profit for the continued growth of knowledge?
I think this was the original thinking behind the Open Source movement. People have tools, like computers, and need to be able to use additional tools, like software, to better ourselves. I believe that the same is true for media.
So guys...does DRM deny access to materials and put profit before the betterment of the species? (in the long term) And no, I am not saying things like an Ashley Simpson or Coldplay album can be used to help the human species evolve. Those items are best used for Olympic sports like target shooting.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Ultimately that is what the recording industry wants to stop. In order to stop it they would have to have all recording devices regulated, and under that scheme the big boys would once more be the gatekeepers to mass media.
You did look at MS's "trusted" computing platforms? Who do you think is going to be trusted? Who do you think is not?
Why should DRM be looked at differently when it is a charity? Wether it is Sony, Greenpeace, EFF or my goldfish who needs an operation is irrelevant.
They downloaded it so it is theirs. Just like I download a song from wherever. The fact that one asks money for it and the other doesn't does not matter. It is then not up to you to deactivate it, even if it was announced for whatever reason. Not because the time has expired, not because I don't have the right software anymore.
Freeloaders? Most likely yes and that is the same identical argument the RIAA and others are making.
This is not about wether the DMA is right or wrong. It is about the fact that there is no difference. What you are saying with in a lot of cases I'd agree with you; but when is actualy: I agree, exept when it affects me (Or something I believe in).
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The market is forcing a price check reality on these services. Why is it ok for a corporation to bend the law to control the market, but not the consumer? This is simple economics in action and morality ( as used in this particular discussion) is simply a tool used by those in control. Corporations have no morality, full stop.
Good-bye